Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1201

control, N = 601

treatment, N = 601

p-value2

age

118

50.72 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

50.56 ± 12.99 (25 - 74)

50.87 ± 13.11 (28 - 73)

0.896

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

120

>0.999

f

92 (77%)

46 (77%)

46 (77%)

m

28 (23%)

14 (23%)

14 (23%)

occupation

120

0.626

day_training

2 (1.7%)

2 (3.3%)

0 (0%)

full_time

14 (12%)

7 (12%)

7 (12%)

homemaker

11 (9.2%)

5 (8.3%)

6 (10%)

other

2 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.3%)

part_time

20 (17%)

9 (15%)

11 (18%)

retired

34 (28%)

16 (27%)

18 (30%)

self_employ

4 (3.3%)

2 (3.3%)

2 (3.3%)

student

2 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (3.3%)

t_and_e

2 (1.7%)

1 (1.7%)

1 (1.7%)

unemploy

29 (24%)

18 (30%)

11 (18%)

marital

120

0.890

cohabitation

1 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.7%)

divore

11 (9.2%)

7 (12%)

4 (6.7%)

in_relationship

3 (2.5%)

2 (3.3%)

1 (1.7%)

married

32 (27%)

16 (27%)

16 (27%)

none

63 (52%)

30 (50%)

33 (55%)

seperation

3 (2.5%)

2 (3.3%)

1 (1.7%)

widow

7 (5.8%)

3 (5.0%)

4 (6.7%)

edu

120

0.407

bachelor

27 (22%)

10 (17%)

17 (28%)

diploma

23 (19%)

15 (25%)

8 (13%)

hd_ad

3 (2.5%)

2 (3.3%)

1 (1.7%)

postgraduate

11 (9.2%)

5 (8.3%)

6 (10%)

primary

8 (6.7%)

2 (3.3%)

6 (10%)

secondary_1_3

15 (12%)

8 (13%)

7 (12%)

secondary_4_5

28 (23%)

16 (27%)

12 (20%)

secondary_6_7

5 (4.2%)

2 (3.3%)

3 (5.0%)

fam_income

120

0.963

10001_12000

6 (5.0%)

2 (3.3%)

4 (6.7%)

12001_14000

6 (5.0%)

3 (5.0%)

3 (5.0%)

14001_16000

6 (5.0%)

2 (3.3%)

4 (6.7%)

16001_18000

3 (2.5%)

1 (1.7%)

2 (3.3%)

18001_20000

4 (3.3%)

3 (5.0%)

1 (1.7%)

20001_above

22 (18%)

12 (20%)

10 (17%)

2001_4000

18 (15%)

10 (17%)

8 (13%)

4001_6000

12 (10%)

5 (8.3%)

7 (12%)

6001_8000

10 (8.3%)

6 (10%)

4 (6.7%)

8001_10000

9 (7.5%)

4 (6.7%)

5 (8.3%)

below_2000

24 (20%)

12 (20%)

12 (20%)

medication

120

107 (89%)

54 (90%)

53 (88%)

0.769

onset_duration

118

15.21 ± 10.39 (0 - 56)

16.27 ± 11.33 (1 - 56)

14.10 ± 9.28 (0 - 35)

0.258

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

116

35.63 ± 14.54 (10 - 65)

34.07 ± 13.22 (10 - 61)

37.18 ± 15.71 (14 - 65)

0.250

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1201

control, N = 601

treatment, N = 601

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

120

3.17 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

3.28 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.05 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)

0.285

recovery_stage_b

120

17.92 ± 2.68 (9 - 24)

17.92 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)

17.93 ± 2.69 (13 - 24)

0.973

ras_confidence

120

30.11 ± 4.97 (18 - 45)

29.87 ± 4.35 (19 - 40)

30.35 ± 5.56 (18 - 45)

0.597

ras_willingness

120

11.88 ± 2.10 (5 - 15)

11.77 ± 2.04 (5 - 15)

12.00 ± 2.16 (7 - 15)

0.545

ras_goal

120

17.38 ± 3.11 (11 - 25)

17.33 ± 2.82 (12 - 24)

17.42 ± 3.41 (11 - 25)

0.884

ras_reliance

120

13.34 ± 2.87 (7 - 20)

13.15 ± 2.67 (8 - 18)

13.53 ± 3.07 (7 - 20)

0.467

ras_domination

120

9.96 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.20 ± 2.38 (3 - 15)

9.72 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

0.272

symptom

120

29.98 ± 9.54 (14 - 56)

30.07 ± 9.63 (14 - 55)

29.88 ± 9.54 (15 - 56)

0.917

slof_work

120

22.38 ± 4.76 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.30 (13 - 30)

22.23 ± 5.21 (10 - 30)

0.731

slof_relationship

120

25.39 ± 5.90 (11 - 35)

24.85 ± 5.65 (13 - 35)

25.93 ± 6.13 (11 - 35)

0.316

satisfaction

120

20.73 ± 7.06 (5 - 35)

19.98 ± 6.68 (5 - 33)

21.47 ± 7.41 (5 - 35)

0.252

mhc_emotional

120

11.12 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

10.83 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.40 ± 3.98 (4 - 18)

0.420

mhc_social

120

15.13 ± 5.55 (5 - 30)

15.10 ± 5.56 (7 - 30)

15.17 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)

0.948

mhc_psychological

120

21.99 ± 6.40 (6 - 36)

21.75 ± 5.87 (9 - 36)

22.23 ± 6.94 (6 - 36)

0.681

resilisnce

120

16.66 ± 4.70 (6 - 30)

16.08 ± 4.26 (6 - 24)

17.23 ± 5.07 (7 - 30)

0.181

social_provision

120

13.71 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)

13.28 ± 2.41 (8 - 20)

14.13 ± 3.20 (5 - 20)

0.103

els_value_living

120

17.02 ± 3.05 (5 - 25)

16.68 ± 2.66 (8 - 22)

17.35 ± 3.38 (5 - 25)

0.233

els_life_fulfill

120

12.80 ± 3.41 (4 - 20)

12.28 ± 3.23 (5 - 19)

13.32 ± 3.53 (4 - 20)

0.097

els

120

29.82 ± 5.91 (9 - 45)

28.97 ± 5.14 (17 - 38)

30.67 ± 6.53 (9 - 45)

0.116

social_connect

120

26.44 ± 9.30 (8 - 48)

27.35 ± 8.76 (8 - 45)

25.53 ± 9.80 (8 - 48)

0.286

shs_agency

120

14.38 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.67 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 5.52 (3 - 24)

0.374

shs_pathway

120

16.27 ± 4.00 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.74 (8 - 24)

16.53 ± 4.25 (4 - 24)

0.481

shs

120

30.66 ± 8.71 (7 - 48)

29.98 ± 8.06 (13 - 45)

31.33 ± 9.33 (7 - 48)

0.398

esteem

120

12.60 ± 1.67 (10 - 20)

12.72 ± 1.62 (10 - 18)

12.48 ± 1.72 (10 - 20)

0.446

mlq_search

120

14.82 ± 3.56 (3 - 21)

14.75 ± 3.29 (6 - 21)

14.88 ± 3.83 (3 - 21)

0.838

mlq_presence

120

13.44 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.40 ± 3.81 (5 - 21)

13.48 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

0.915

mlq

120

28.26 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

28.15 ± 6.08 (12 - 40)

28.37 ± 7.78 (6 - 42)

0.865

empower

120

19.27 ± 4.40 (6 - 30)

18.92 ± 4.19 (11 - 30)

19.63 ± 4.60 (6 - 30)

0.374

ismi_resistance

120

14.61 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.55 ± 2.22 (10 - 20)

14.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.809

ismi_discrimation

120

11.42 ± 3.19 (5 - 20)

11.97 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)

10.87 ± 3.23 (5 - 20)

0.059

sss_affective

120

9.93 ± 3.57 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.48 (3 - 18)

9.77 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)

0.611

sss_behavior

120

9.60 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.91 (3 - 18)

9.25 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)

0.314

sss_cognitive

120

8.07 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)

8.25 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

7.88 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

0.587

sss

120

27.60 ± 10.14 (9 - 54)

28.30 ± 10.17 (9 - 54)

26.90 ± 10.15 (9 - 54)

0.452

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.28

0.150

2.99, 3.58

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.233

0.212

-0.648, 0.181

0.272

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.046

0.239

-0.422, 0.514

0.847

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.506

0.340

-0.161, 1.17

0.141

Pseudo R square

0.025

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.362

17.2, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.017

0.512

-0.986, 1.02

0.974

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.313

0.541

-1.37, 0.747

0.565

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.799

0.771

-0.712, 2.31

0.303

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.656

28.6, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.483

0.928

-1.34, 2.30

0.603

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.758

0.754

-0.719, 2.24

0.318

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

1.075

-1.09, 3.13

0.346

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.8

0.271

11.2, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.233

0.384

-0.518, 0.985

0.544

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.614

0.302

-1.20, -0.023

0.046

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.799

0.430

-0.044, 1.64

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.413

16.5, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.083

0.585

-1.06, 1.23

0.887

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.437

0.501

-1.42, 0.545

0.387

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.63

0.715

0.227, 3.03

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.024

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.370

12.4, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.383

0.523

-0.642, 1.41

0.465

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.348

0.406

-0.447, 1.14

0.394

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

0.579

-0.134, 2.13

0.089

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.303

9.61, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.483

0.428

-1.32, 0.356

0.261

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.255

0.430

-1.10, 0.588

0.555

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.33

0.613

0.130, 2.53

0.034

Pseudo R square

0.023

symptom

(Intercept)

30.1

1.234

27.6, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.183

1.745

-3.60, 3.24

0.916

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.144

1.094

-2.29, 2.00

0.896

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.41

1.562

-4.47, 1.66

0.372

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.613

21.3, 23.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.300

0.867

-2.00, 1.40

0.730

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.222

0.657

-1.51, 1.07

0.737

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.321

0.937

-1.52, 2.16

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.001

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.756

23.4, 26.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

1.069

-1.01, 3.18

0.313

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.13

0.774

-2.64, 0.392

0.151

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.80

1.104

-0.361, 3.97

0.108

Pseudo R square

0.024

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.0

0.919

18.2, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.48

1.300

-1.06, 4.03

0.256

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.595

1.074

-1.51, 2.70

0.582

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.460

1.532

-2.54, 3.46

0.765

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.490

9.87, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.567

0.692

-0.790, 1.92

0.415

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.349

0.505

-0.642, 1.34

0.493

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.218

0.721

-1.63, 1.20

0.764

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.739

13.7, 16.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.067

1.045

-1.98, 2.11

0.949

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.608

0.877

-1.11, 2.33

0.491

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.292

1.251

-2.74, 2.16

0.816

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.856

20.1, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.483

1.211

-1.89, 2.86

0.690

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.714

0.989

-1.23, 2.65

0.473

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.048

1.411

-2.81, 2.72

0.973

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.592

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.15

0.837

-0.490, 2.79

0.172

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.200

0.716

-1.20, 1.60

0.781

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.35

1.021

-0.652, 3.35

0.191

Pseudo R square

0.040

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.371

12.6, 14.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.850

0.525

-0.179, 1.88

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.587

0.470

-1.51, 0.334

0.216

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.718

0.670

-0.596, 2.03

0.288

Pseudo R square

0.038

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.401

15.9, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.667

0.567

-0.444, 1.78

0.241

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.233

0.482

-0.712, 1.18

0.631

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.297

0.688

-1.05, 1.65

0.667

Pseudo R square

0.018

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.431

11.4, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

0.609

-0.161, 2.23

0.092

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.560

0.411

-0.246, 1.37

0.179

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.244

0.587

-1.39, 0.906

0.679

Pseudo R square

0.024

els

(Intercept)

29.0

0.764

27.5, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.70

1.080

-0.417, 3.82

0.118

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.771

0.750

-0.699, 2.24

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.058

1.070

-2.04, 2.16

0.957

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.3

1.215

25.0, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.82

1.718

-5.18, 1.55

0.292

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

1.218

-1.22, 3.55

0.342

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.53

1.737

-6.94, -0.129

0.046

Pseudo R square

0.031

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.658

12.7, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.833

0.930

-0.990, 2.66

0.372

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.079

0.683

-1.26, 1.42

0.908

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.789

0.975

-1.12, 2.70

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.512

15.0, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.517

0.724

-0.902, 1.94

0.477

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.126

0.528

-0.909, 1.16

0.812

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.006

0.754

-1.47, 1.48

0.994

Pseudo R square

0.004

shs

(Intercept)

30.0

1.116

27.8, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.35

1.578

-1.74, 4.44

0.394

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.210

1.109

-1.96, 2.38

0.850

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.774

1.582

-2.33, 3.88

0.627

Pseudo R square

0.010

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.201

12.3, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.233

0.284

-0.789, 0.323

0.412

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.004

0.309

-0.602, 0.611

0.989

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.226

0.441

-0.639, 1.09

0.612

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.453

13.9, 15.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.133

0.640

-1.12, 1.39

0.835

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.141

0.602

-1.04, 1.32

0.816

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.144

0.859

-1.83, 1.54

0.868

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.545

12.3, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.083

0.771

-1.43, 1.60

0.914

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.240

0.638

-1.01, 1.49

0.708

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.109

0.910

-1.67, 1.89

0.905

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

0.899

26.4, 29.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.217

1.272

-2.28, 2.71

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.392

1.098

-1.76, 2.55

0.722

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.029

1.567

-3.10, 3.04

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.001

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.567

17.8, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.717

0.802

-0.856, 2.29

0.373

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.186

0.553

-0.898, 1.27

0.738

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.460

0.790

-2.01, 1.09

0.563

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.332

13.9, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.117

0.470

-0.804, 1.04

0.804

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.053

0.460

-0.955, 0.849

0.909

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.508

0.656

-0.779, 1.79

0.442

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.410

11.2, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.10

0.580

-2.24, 0.037

0.060

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.355

0.462

-1.26, 0.550

0.445

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.387

0.659

-0.905, 1.68

0.559

Pseudo R square

0.025

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.454

9.21, 11.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.333

0.642

-1.59, 0.925

0.604

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.139

0.499

-0.840, 1.12

0.781

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.712

-2.57, 0.218

0.103

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.95

0.481

9.01, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.700

0.680

-2.03, 0.633

0.305

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.032

0.540

-1.09, 1.03

0.953

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.653

0.770

-2.16, 0.857

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.25

0.470

7.33, 9.17

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.367

0.665

-1.67, 0.937

0.582

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.703

0.523

-0.322, 1.73

0.184

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

0.747

-2.79, 0.140

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss

(Intercept)

28.3

1.298

25.8, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.40

1.836

-5.00, 2.20

0.447

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.760

1.325

-1.84, 3.36

0.568

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.03

1.891

-6.73, 0.680

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.019

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [2.99, 3.58], t(167) = 21.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.18], t(167) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51], t(167) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.17], t(167) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.21, 18.63], t(167) = 49.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.02], t(167) = 0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = 5.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.75], t(167) = -0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.31], t(167) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [28.58, 31.15], t(167) = 45.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.30], t(167) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.24], t(167) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.13], t(167) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [11.24, 12.30], t(167) = 43.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.99], t(167) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.02], t(167) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.64], t(167) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.52, 18.14], t(167) = 41.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.23], t(167) = 0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.55], t(167) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.23, 3.03], t(167) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.07, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.42, 13.88], t(167) = 35.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.41], t(167) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.14], t(167) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.13], t(167) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.20 (95% CI [9.61, 10.79], t(167) = 33.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.36], t(167) = -1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.59], t(167) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.13, 2.53], t(167) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.06, 1.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.07 (95% CI [27.65, 32.48], t(167) = 24.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.60, 3.24], t(167) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.00], t(167) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.66], t(167) = -0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.33, 23.73], t(167) = 36.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.40], t(167) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.07], t(167) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.16], t(167) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.85 (95% CI [23.37, 26.33], t(167) = 32.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.18], t(167) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.39], t(167) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.36, 3.97], t(167) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.98 (95% CI [18.18, 21.78], t(167) = 21.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-1.06, 4.03], t(167) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.70], t(167) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.54, 3.46], t(167) = 0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.83 (95% CI [9.87, 11.79], t(167) = 22.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.92], t(167) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.34], t(167) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.20], t(167) = -0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.10 (95% CI [13.65, 16.55], t(167) = 20.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.11], t(167) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.33], t(167) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.74, 2.16], t(167) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.75 (95% CI [20.07, 23.43], t(167) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.89, 2.86], t(167) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.65], t(167) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.72], t(167) = -0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = -7.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.08 (95% CI [14.92, 17.24], t(167) = 27.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.79], t(167) = 1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.60], t(167) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.35], t(167) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.56, 14.01], t(167) = 35.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.88], t(167) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.33], t(167) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.03], t(167) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [15.90, 17.47], t(167) = 41.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.78], t(167) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.18], t(167) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.65], t(167) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.28 (95% CI [11.44, 13.13], t(167) = 28.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.23], t(167) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.37], t(167) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.91], t(167) = -0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.97 (95% CI [27.47, 30.46], t(167) = 37.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.82], t(167) = 1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.24], t(167) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.16], t(167) = 0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = 9.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.35 (95% CI [24.97, 29.73], t(167) = 22.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-5.18, 1.55], t(167) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.55], t(167) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.53, 95% CI [-6.94, -0.13], t(167) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.68, 15.26], t(167) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.66], t(167) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.42], t(167) = 0.12, p = 0.908; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.70], t(167) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [15.01, 17.02], t(167) = 31.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.94], t(167) = 0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.16], t(167) = 0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.61e-03, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.48], t(167) = 7.44e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [27.80, 32.17], t(167) = 26.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-1.74, 4.44], t(167) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.38], t(167) = 0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.33, 3.88], t(167) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.72 (95% CI [12.32, 13.11], t(167) = 63.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.32], t(167) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.61], t(167) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.09], t(167) = 0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.35e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.86, 15.64], t(167) = 32.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.39], t(167) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.32], t(167) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.54], t(167) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.33, 14.47], t(167) = 24.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.60], t(167) = 0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.49], t(167) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.89], t(167) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.46e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [26.39, 29.91], t(167) = 31.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.71], t(167) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.55], t(167) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.10, 3.04], t(167) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.92 (95% CI [17.80, 20.03], t(167) = 33.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.29], t(167) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.27], t(167) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.09], t(167) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.55 (95% CI [13.90, 15.20], t(167) = 43.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.04], t(167) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.85], t(167) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.79], t(167) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.16, 12.77], t(167) = 29.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.24, 0.04], t(167) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.55], t(167) = -0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.68], t(167) = 0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.10 (95% CI [9.21, 10.99], t(167) = 22.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.92], t(167) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.12], t(167) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.22], t(167) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.01, 10.89], t(167) = 20.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.63], t(167) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.03], t(167) = -0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = -8.42e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.86], t(167) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.25 (95% CI [7.33, 9.17], t(167) = 17.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.67, 0.94], t(167) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.73], t(167) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.14], t(167) = -1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.30 (95% CI [25.76, 30.84], t(167) = 21.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-5.00, 2.20], t(167) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.84, 3.36], t(167) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.03, 95% CI [-6.73, 0.68], t(167) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

544.906

554.366

-269.453

538.906

recovery_stage_a

random

6

545.390

564.309

-266.695

533.390

5.517

3

0.138

recovery_stage_b

null

3

841.660

851.120

-417.830

835.660

recovery_stage_b

random

6

846.280

865.200

-417.140

834.280

1.379

3

0.710

ras_confidence

null

3

1,030.330

1,039.789

-512.165

1,024.330

ras_confidence

random

6

1,029.346

1,048.266

-508.673

1,017.346

6.983

3

0.072

ras_willingness

null

3

720.351

729.811

-357.176

714.351

ras_willingness

random

6

720.584

739.504

-354.292

708.584

5.767

3

0.124

ras_goal

null

3

875.359

884.819

-434.679

869.359

ras_goal

random

6

874.520

893.440

-431.260

862.520

6.839

3

0.077

ras_reliance

null

3

832.979

842.439

-413.490

826.979

ras_reliance

random

6

826.632

845.552

-407.316

814.632

12.347

3

0.006

ras_domination

null

3

780.975

790.435

-387.488

774.975

ras_domination

random

6

780.722

799.641

-384.361

768.722

6.254

3

0.100

symptom

null

3

1,218.521

1,227.981

-606.260

1,212.521

symptom

random

6

1,222.459

1,241.379

-605.230

1,210.459

2.062

3

0.560

slof_work

null

3

993.330

1,002.790

-493.665

987.330

slof_work

random

6

999.117

1,018.037

-493.558

987.117

0.213

3

0.975

slof_relationship

null

3

1,066.257

1,075.717

-530.129

1,060.257

slof_relationship

random

6

1,067.262

1,086.182

-527.631

1,055.262

4.995

3

0.172

satisfaction

null

3

1,144.481

1,153.941

-569.240

1,138.481

satisfaction

random

6

1,147.579

1,166.498

-567.789

1,135.579

2.902

3

0.407

mhc_emotional

null

3

912.846

922.306

-453.423

906.846

mhc_emotional

random

6

917.696

936.616

-452.848

905.696

1.150

3

0.765

mhc_social

null

3

1,068.090

1,077.550

-531.045

1,062.090

mhc_social

random

6

1,073.467

1,092.387

-530.733

1,061.467

0.623

3

0.891

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,117.120

1,126.579

-555.560

1,111.120

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,121.974

1,140.894

-554.987

1,109.974

1.146

3

0.766

resilisnce

null

3

1,000.365

1,009.825

-497.183

994.365

resilisnce

random

6

998.453

1,017.373

-493.226

986.453

7.912

3

0.048

social_provision

null

3

841.306

850.766

-417.653

835.306

social_provision

random

6

841.355

860.275

-414.678

829.355

5.951

3

0.114

els_value_living

null

3

860.299

869.759

-427.150

854.299

els_value_living

random

6

863.003

881.922

-425.501

851.003

3.296

3

0.348

els_life_fulfill

null

3

864.837

874.296

-429.418

858.837

els_life_fulfill

random

6

865.676

884.596

-426.838

853.676

5.161

3

0.160

els

null

3

1,065.605

1,075.065

-529.802

1,059.605

els

random

6

1,066.680

1,085.599

-527.340

1,054.680

4.925

3

0.177

social_connect

null

3

1,230.392

1,239.852

-612.196

1,224.392

social_connect

random

6

1,229.325

1,248.245

-608.662

1,217.325

7.067

3

0.070

shs_agency

null

3

1,017.444

1,026.904

-505.722

1,011.444

shs_agency

random

6

1,020.548

1,039.468

-504.274

1,008.548

2.896

3

0.408

shs_pathway

null

3

927.696

937.156

-460.848

921.696

shs_pathway

random

6

933.029

951.949

-460.514

921.029

0.667

3

0.881

shs

null

3

1,194.871

1,204.331

-594.436

1,188.871

shs

random

6

1,199.051

1,217.971

-593.526

1,187.051

1.820

3

0.611

esteem

null

3

639.493

648.953

-316.746

633.493

esteem

random

6

644.479

663.399

-316.239

632.479

1.014

3

0.798

mlq_search

null

3

908.462

917.921

-451.231

902.462

mlq_search

random

6

914.379

933.299

-451.190

902.379

0.082

3

0.994

mlq_presence

null

3

961.570

971.030

-477.785

955.570

mlq_presence

random

6

967.104

986.023

-477.552

955.104

0.466

3

0.926

mlq

null

3

1,138.396

1,147.856

-566.198

1,132.396

mlq

random

6

1,144.126

1,163.045

-566.063

1,132.126

0.270

3

0.966

empower

null

3

958.088

967.548

-476.044

952.088

empower

random

6

963.112

982.032

-475.556

951.112

0.976

3

0.807

ismi_resistance

null

3

806.007

815.467

-400.003

800.007

ismi_resistance

random

6

810.707

829.626

-399.353

798.707

1.300

3

0.729

ismi_discrimation

null

3

862.890

872.350

-428.445

856.890

ismi_discrimation

random

6

865.016

883.936

-426.508

853.016

3.874

3

0.275

sss_affective

null

3

897.005

906.465

-445.502

891.005

sss_affective

random

6

897.715

916.635

-442.857

885.715

5.290

3

0.152

sss_behavior

null

3

916.881

926.341

-455.440

910.881

sss_behavior

random

6

919.585

938.504

-453.792

907.585

3.296

3

0.348

sss_cognitive

null

3

909.525

918.985

-451.763

903.525

sss_cognitive

random

6

911.166

930.086

-449.583

899.166

4.359

3

0.225

sss

null

3

1,252.727

1,262.187

-623.363

1,246.727

sss

random

6

1,254.120

1,273.039

-621.060

1,242.120

4.607

3

0.203

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

60

3.28 ± 1.16

60

3.05 ± 1.16

0.272

0.238

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.33 ± 1.14

-0.047

26

3.60 ± 1.14

-0.564

0.387

-0.278

recovery_stage_b

1st

60

17.92 ± 2.80

60

17.93 ± 2.80

0.974

-0.008

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.60 ± 2.70

0.144

26

18.42 ± 2.70

-0.223

0.273

-0.375

ras_confidence

1st

60

29.87 ± 5.08

60

30.35 ± 5.08

0.603

-0.167

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.63 ± 4.42

-0.261

26

32.13 ± 4.40

-0.613

0.216

-0.519

ras_willingness

1st

60

11.77 ± 2.10

60

12.00 ± 2.10

0.544

-0.202

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.15 ± 1.80

0.530

26

12.19 ± 1.80

-0.160

0.038

-0.892

ras_goal

1st

60

17.33 ± 3.20

60

17.42 ± 3.20

0.887

-0.043

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.90 ± 2.84

0.225

26

18.61 ± 2.83

-0.613

0.029

-0.881

ras_reliance

1st

60

13.15 ± 2.87

60

13.53 ± 2.87

0.465

-0.247

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.50 ± 2.45

-0.224

26

14.88 ± 2.44

-0.867

0.041

-0.890

ras_domination

1st

60

10.20 ± 2.35

60

9.72 ± 2.35

0.261

0.283

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.94 ± 2.21

0.149

26

10.79 ± 2.21

-0.630

0.164

-0.496

symptom

1st

60

30.07 ± 9.56

60

29.88 ± 9.56

0.916

0.044

symptom

2nd

27

29.92 ± 7.63

0.035

26

28.33 ± 7.57

0.375

0.448

0.385

slof_work

1st

60

22.53 ± 4.75

60

22.23 ± 4.75

0.730

0.119

slof_work

2nd

27

22.31 ± 4.03

0.088

26

22.33 ± 4.00

-0.040

0.985

-0.008

slof_relationship

1st

60

24.85 ± 5.86

60

25.93 ± 5.86

0.313

-0.367

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.72 ± 4.89

0.382

26

26.61 ± 4.86

-0.230

0.032

-0.979

satisfaction

1st

60

19.98 ± 7.12

60

21.47 ± 7.12

0.256

-0.358

satisfaction

2nd

27

20.58 ± 6.23

-0.143

26

22.52 ± 6.20

-0.255

0.257

-0.469

mhc_emotional

1st

60

10.83 ± 3.79

60

11.40 ± 3.79

0.415

-0.294

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.18 ± 3.17

-0.181

26

11.53 ± 3.15

-0.068

0.689

-0.181

mhc_social

1st

60

15.10 ± 5.72

60

15.17 ± 5.72

0.949

-0.020

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.71 ± 5.04

-0.179

26

15.48 ± 5.01

-0.093

0.871

0.066

mhc_psychological

1st

60

21.75 ± 6.63

60

22.23 ± 6.63

0.690

-0.127

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.46 ± 5.78

-0.187

26

22.90 ± 5.75

-0.175

0.784

-0.114

resilisnce

1st

60

16.08 ± 4.58

60

17.23 ± 4.58

0.172

-0.415

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.28 ± 4.06

-0.072

26

18.78 ± 4.05

-0.559

0.026

-0.901

social_provision

1st

60

13.28 ± 2.88

60

14.13 ± 2.88

0.108

-0.464

social_provision

2nd

27

12.70 ± 2.59

0.321

26

14.26 ± 2.59

-0.071

0.029

-0.856

els_value_living

1st

60

16.68 ± 3.10

60

17.35 ± 3.10

0.241

-0.357

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.92 ± 2.75

-0.125

26

17.88 ± 2.73

-0.284

0.202

-0.516

els_life_fulfill

1st

60

12.28 ± 3.34

60

13.32 ± 3.34

0.092

-0.663

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.84 ± 2.72

-0.359

26

13.63 ± 2.70

-0.203

0.291

-0.507

els

1st

60

28.97 ± 5.92

60

30.67 ± 5.92

0.118

-0.597

els

2nd

27

29.74 ± 4.87

-0.271

26

31.50 ± 4.84

-0.291

0.189

-0.617

social_connect

1st

60

27.35 ± 9.41

60

25.53 ± 9.41

0.292

0.392

social_connect

2nd

27

28.52 ± 7.80

-0.252

26

23.17 ± 7.75

0.511

0.013

1.156

shs_agency

1st

60

13.97 ± 5.10

60

14.80 ± 5.10

0.372

-0.320

shs_agency

2nd

27

14.05 ± 4.27

-0.030

26

15.67 ± 4.25

-0.333

0.168

-0.622

shs_pathway

1st

60

16.02 ± 3.96

60

16.53 ± 3.96

0.477

-0.257

shs_pathway

2nd

27

16.14 ± 3.32

-0.063

26

16.66 ± 3.30

-0.065

0.566

-0.259

shs

1st

60

29.98 ± 8.64

60

31.33 ± 8.64

0.394

-0.320

shs

2nd

27

30.19 ± 7.15

-0.050

26

32.32 ± 7.10

-0.234

0.279

-0.504

esteem

1st

60

12.72 ± 1.55

60

12.48 ± 1.55

0.412

0.186

esteem

2nd

27

12.72 ± 1.51

-0.004

26

12.71 ± 1.51

-0.183

0.985

0.006

mlq_search

1st

60

14.75 ± 3.51

60

14.88 ± 3.51

0.835

-0.056

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.89 ± 3.23

-0.059

26

14.88 ± 3.22

0.001

0.991

0.004

mlq_presence

1st

60

13.40 ± 4.22

60

13.48 ± 4.22

0.914

-0.034

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.64 ± 3.70

-0.098

26

13.83 ± 3.68

-0.142

0.849

-0.078

mlq

1st

60

28.15 ± 6.97

60

28.37 ± 6.97

0.865

-0.051

mlq

2nd

27

28.54 ± 6.20

-0.092

26

28.73 ± 6.17

-0.085

0.912

-0.044

empower

1st

60

18.92 ± 4.39

60

19.63 ± 4.39

0.373

-0.341

empower

2nd

27

19.10 ± 3.61

-0.089

26

19.36 ± 3.58

0.130

0.795

-0.122

ismi_resistance

1st

60

14.55 ± 2.57

60

14.67 ± 2.57

0.804

-0.064

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.50 ± 2.41

0.029

26

15.12 ± 2.40

-0.250

0.346

-0.343

ismi_discrimation

1st

60

11.97 ± 3.18

60

10.87 ± 3.18

0.060

0.619

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.61 ± 2.74

0.200

26

10.90 ± 2.73

-0.018

0.345

0.401

sss_affective

1st

60

10.10 ± 3.52

60

9.77 ± 3.52

0.604

0.174

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.24 ± 3.01

-0.073

26

8.73 ± 2.99

0.543

0.068

0.790

sss_behavior

1st

60

9.95 ± 3.72

60

9.25 ± 3.72

0.305

0.338

sss_behavior

2nd

27

9.92 ± 3.21

0.015

26

8.57 ± 3.19

0.330

0.126

0.652

sss_cognitive

1st

60

8.25 ± 3.64

60

7.88 ± 3.64

0.582

0.183

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

8.95 ± 3.13

-0.350

26

7.26 ± 3.11

0.309

0.051

0.841

sss

1st

60

28.30 ± 10.06

60

26.90 ± 10.06

0.447

0.277

sss

2nd

27

29.06 ± 8.39

-0.151

26

24.63 ± 8.33

0.449

0.056

0.877

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(161.25) = -1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.18)

2st

t(164.20) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(155.06) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.03)

2st

t(161.70) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.28)

ras_confidence

1st

t(137.15) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.32)

2st

t(164.23) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.90)

ras_willingness

1st

t(135.68) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.99)

2st

t(165.18) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.01)

ras_goal

1st

t(139.87) = 0.14, p = 0.887, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.24)

2st

t(162.73) = 2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.17 to 3.25)

ras_reliance

1st

t(135.08) = 0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.42)

2st

t(165.59) = 2.06, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.71)

ras_domination

1st

t(150.68) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.36)

2st

t(160.82) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.05)

symptom

1st

t(128.38) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-3.64 to 3.27)

2st

t(169.00) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.71 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(134.17) = -0.35, p = 0.730, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.41)

2st

t(166.21) = 0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.20)

slof_relationship

1st

t(132.50) = 1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.03 to 3.20)

2st

t(167.34) = 2.16, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.24 to 5.53)

satisfaction

1st

t(137.97) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.09 to 4.05)

2st

t(163.74) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.43 to 5.31)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(132.79) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.94)

2st

t(167.15) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.07)

mhc_social

1st

t(138.77) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.13)

2st

t(163.29) = -0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.50)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(137.43) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.91 to 2.88)

2st

t(164.06) = 0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.56)

resilisnce

1st

t(139.77) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.80)

2st

t(162.78) = 2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.30 to 4.70)

social_provision

1st

t(142.37) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.89)

2st

t(161.71) = 2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.97)

els_value_living

1st

t(139.49) = 1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.79)

2st

t(162.91) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.45)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(130.29) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.24)

2st

t(168.58) = 1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.26)

els

1st

t(131.14) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.84)

2st

t(168.16) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.39)

social_connect

1st

t(131.78) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.22 to 1.58)

2st

t(167.79) = -2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-9.57 to -1.13)

shs_agency

1st

t(133.01) = 0.90, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.67)

2st

t(167.00) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.93)

shs_pathway

1st

t(132.78) = 0.71, p = 0.477, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.95)

2st

t(167.16) = 0.57, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.32)

shs

1st

t(131.51) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.77 to 4.47)

2st

t(167.95) = 1.09, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.74 to 5.99)

esteem

1st

t(157.99) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.33)

2st

t(162.71) = -0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st

t(145.67) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.40)

2st

t(160.91) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.74)

mlq_presence

1st

t(138.03) = 0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.61)

2st

t(163.70) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.19)

mlq

1st

t(140.30) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.73)

2st

t(162.53) = 0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-3.17 to 3.54)

empower

1st

t(130.94) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.30)

2st

t(168.27) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.21)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(148.68) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.04)

2st

t(160.70) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.93)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(136.26) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.05)

2st

t(164.80) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.77)

sss_affective

1st

t(135.23) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.94)

2st

t(165.48) = -1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.14 to 0.12)

sss_behavior

1st

t(136.11) = -1.03, p = 0.305, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.64)

2st

t(164.89) = -1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.09 to 0.38)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(135.70) = -0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.95)

2st

t(165.16) = -1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.38 to 0.00)

sss

1st

t(132.40) = -0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.23)

2st

t(167.41) = -1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.96 to 0.11)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(84.68) = 2.26, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.04)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(77.51) = 0.88, p = 0.765, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.59)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(62.85) = 2.31, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 3.32)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(61.85) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(64.76) = 2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.21)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.45) = 3.25, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(73.34) = 2.45, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.95)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(57.14) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.79 to 0.69)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(60.84) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(59.75) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.26)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(63.42) = 0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.25)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(59.94) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(63.99) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.11)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(63.05) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.69)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(64.69) = 2.12, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.09 to 3.01)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(66.60) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(64.49) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.33) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)

els

1st vs 2st

t(58.87) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.36)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.28) = -1.90, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-4.86 to 0.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.08) = 1.24, p = 0.437, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(59.93) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.11) = 0.87, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.25)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(80.65) = 0.73, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(69.14) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.23)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(63.47) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(65.07) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.61)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(58.74) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.86)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(71.61) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.39)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(62.24) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.98)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(61.55) = -2.04, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.06 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(62.14) = -1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(61.87) = -1.16, p = 0.502, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.45)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(59.68) = -1.67, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.98 to 0.44)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(83.41) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(76.54) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(62.46) = 1.00, p = 0.641, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.27)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(61.49) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.22 to -0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(64.30) = -0.87, p = 0.778, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.57)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(61.10) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.16)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(72.54) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.61)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(56.94) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.05)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(60.52) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.10)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(59.46) = -1.45, p = 0.305, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.43)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(63.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.75)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(59.65) = 0.69, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(63.55) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.37)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(62.65) = 0.72, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.70)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(64.23) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(66.06) = -1.24, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(64.04) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.20)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.10) = 1.36, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.39)

els

1st vs 2st

t(58.62) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.28)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.02) = 0.95, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.61)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(59.78) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.45)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(59.64) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.19)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(58.85) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.44)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(79.55) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.62)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(68.50) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(63.05) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.52)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(64.60) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.60)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(58.50) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.30)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(70.88) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(61.87) = -0.77, p = 0.894, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(61.20) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(61.77) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(61.51) = 1.34, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.75)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(59.40) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.90 to 3.42)

Plot

Clinical significance